Female politicians' statistics bode unlikely for a Hillary presidency
Liz Klimas
Issue date: 4/10/08 Section: Opinion
The Democrats have five months before they must rally behind one candidate at their National Convention in August. Their two potential candidates would each become firsts in the history books if elected: first female, or first black president. With the "issues" of race and gender, observers question whether the United States is ready for their first female or black president, or whether a Democratic loss would prolong the long tradition of WASP males.
Judging from how the Democratic primaries continue to unfold, Democratic voters seem more supportive of a black man than a white woman. So, is it because she is a woman or is it specific to Hillary Clinton?
Straight numbers seem to disillusion our perception of the success of women in politics. And while the numbers grow from year to year, the United States obviously is still adjusting to the idea of women in charge of states, policies and the country.
Because the United States may not be ready for a female president yet, Hillary struggles as the first female in history to run for president under a major political party.
Historically, females in U.S. politics have not fared well. Currently only 16 women serve on the 100-member U.S. Senate; only a total of 35 women in history have served in the Senate. A 2007 "Newsweek" article said only eight women serve as acting governors, with 22 preceding them since 1922: a "grand" total of 30. And women were granted suffrage 88 years ago. And the British parliamentary government did not have a female prime minister for 272 years until Margaret Thatcher came along - a woman Hillary compared herself to once. But this allusion was far from appropriate.
Thatcher's rose to prime minister of the United Kingdom after extensive political involvement. Clinton's political stature, though easily forgotten, came from her husband - and reliance on a husband to boost her career seems a little hypocritical for a feminist.
Clinton's political "experience" includes two roles as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. and U.S. Senator for New York. This woman, who carpetbagged over to New York and bought a house in a state where she never lived, never would have won the election if it had been based on political merit or involvement. She won because of her husband.
Judging from how the Democratic primaries continue to unfold, Democratic voters seem more supportive of a black man than a white woman. So, is it because she is a woman or is it specific to Hillary Clinton?
Straight numbers seem to disillusion our perception of the success of women in politics. And while the numbers grow from year to year, the United States obviously is still adjusting to the idea of women in charge of states, policies and the country.
Because the United States may not be ready for a female president yet, Hillary struggles as the first female in history to run for president under a major political party.
Historically, females in U.S. politics have not fared well. Currently only 16 women serve on the 100-member U.S. Senate; only a total of 35 women in history have served in the Senate. A 2007 "Newsweek" article said only eight women serve as acting governors, with 22 preceding them since 1922: a "grand" total of 30. And women were granted suffrage 88 years ago. And the British parliamentary government did not have a female prime minister for 272 years until Margaret Thatcher came along - a woman Hillary compared herself to once. But this allusion was far from appropriate.
Thatcher's rose to prime minister of the United Kingdom after extensive political involvement. Clinton's political stature, though easily forgotten, came from her husband - and reliance on a husband to boost her career seems a little hypocritical for a feminist.
Clinton's political "experience" includes two roles as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. and U.S. Senator for New York. This woman, who carpetbagged over to New York and bought a house in a state where she never lived, never would have won the election if it had been based on political merit or involvement. She won because of her husband.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Marin Pendergrass
posted 5/23/08 @ 5:10 PM EST
The author succinctly provided very relevant information.
Post a Comment